Clement? You think reading Clement Freud will help me uncover my motives in drawing attention to your double digit IQ? I don't think so. It might help me cook salmon in an interesting way. But do I want to cook salmon like a pervert, that's the question I'd be asking myself. — Bartricks
In fact, my first or second thread was over really quickly when the consistently helpful Pfhorrest sunk the hypothesis in about three posts flat. I liked that. Saves wasting time believing in things erroneously. — Kenosha Kid
I do have reason to believe it.
But regardless of whether or not I do believe it, or whether or not I have reason to believe it, the rock will still fall. In any case, whether or not the rock falls, my belief and the reasons for my belief don't affect the rock. — khaled
In short:
1- God can move a rock
2- If the mind that issues normative reasons is God, then the mind that issues normative reasons can move a rock.
3- The mind that issues the laws of reason cannot affect a rock in any way (since rocks aren't affected by normative reasons).
4- Therefore the mind that issues normative reasons is not God.
Which premise do you disagree with? — khaled
And do you have reason to believe that, or no reason to believe it? — Bartricks
3 is clearly false. Even if rocks are not affected by normative reasons, it doesn't follow that the mind whose attitudes constitute such reasons is unable to affect rocks. — Bartricks
My case requires only that we acknowledge that being omniscient involves possessing all items of knowledge, and that knowledge has at least two components: justification and true belief. — Bartricks
But note too that my main case does not depend upon identifying Reason and God. — Bartricks
Yeah, I don't know whether it's the lapsed academic in me, but most of my OPs are there to invite criticism, look for holes, find the weakest points and, if possible, help me fix them. — Kenosha Kid
And regardless, you haven't answered the critique that even if God changes the normative reasons, he can't do anything to those who ignore them. Your God cannot affect a single person, animal, plant or object reliably. Yet he/she is omnipotent somehow. — khaled
1- Reason is a faculty (your words)
2- God is a person (your words)
3- Persons aren't faculties (obviously)
4- Therefore God is not Reason — khaled
Its just the persons opinion that it's a mistake but fundamentally there's no such thing. — MAYAEL
Well That sounds about as retarded as any of the other retarded beliefs stated here today — MAYAEL
Er, no, I did not say 'Reason is a faculty'. I said 'our reason' is a faculty. Christ, you people are soooo sloppy. — Bartricks
YOu seem to be able to comprehend this with sight, so what's your problem? — Bartricks
Explaining the omnipotence of God is 'not' the issue. Can't you see this? — Bartricks
What is a justification made of? Well, a justification is made of God's attitudes. That is, to be 'justified' in believing something is for God to favour you believing it.
— Bartricks
Where’d you get this? — khaled
Ratiocination.
It follows from being omnipotent. — Bartricks
I can explain the mechanics of omnipotence, but here is not the place. — Bartricks
What you're doing is focussing on normative reasons - which Reason will also be the source of and by dint of which she has colossal power - and not on the rational landscape more generally, all of which is a creature of her will — Bartricks
If you can't understand a basic concept like what I stated and see how it applies in your life then we can't have a conversation so until the shields are down have a good day — MAYAEL
He's such a genius that even his bad ideas are good ideas
Yes, if God falsely believes that p, then the proposition 'not p' is true. Does that mean God believes 'not p'. Er, no.
And remember, I'm the drooling idiot here, so you have to explain it to me, not just ask me questions or insist that it's explained already when I clearly didn't get it. — Kenosha Kid
Now I think that throughout this thread your reasoning has been malfunctioning badly and I can fix it. To do that, first tell me what's the answer to this simple question: — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.